Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-400 - McKinnedy v. SCDC

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

William McKinnedy, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.


Appeal from the Administrative Law Court
John D. McLeod, Administrative Law Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-400 
Submitted August 15, 2011 – Filed August 22, 2011


AFFIRMED


William C. McKinnedy, III, pro se, for Appellant.

Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  William C. McKinnedy, III, appeals the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order affirming the Department of Corrections' (the Department) correction of his sentence classification.  He argues he was denied due process of law when the Department recalculated his sentence after an audit revealed his offense was a no parole offense.[1]  We affirm,[2] finding substantial evidence supports the ALC's decision McKinnedy was not deprived of a liberty interest and thus not denied due process of law.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2010) (limiting reversal of an ALC decision unless "in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; . . . [or] clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record"); U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (guaranteeing due process of law only when the deprivation of life, liberty, or property is at stake).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


[1] McKinnedy's remaining arguments are unpreserved for our review because they were never ruled on by the ALC.  State v. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. 354, 379, 527 S.E.2d 742, 755 (2000) ("Consequently, issues or arguments that were not raised to and ruled on by the [ALC] ordinarily are not preserved for review.").

[2] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.